Re: RFC: developing DBD::SQLite

On Mar 27, 2009, at 2:39 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:

> I have tried emailing Matt several times without response already.   
> Should I try telephoning him next?  For all it looks like, Matt has  
> abandoned the module.  If someone knows better, or has been in  
> contact recently, I'd be happy to hear.

Looks like he responded to someone emailing him without CC'ing a mail  
list.

> So following your response, I will eliminate a lot of the change  
> items from my plan.  In particular, I will continue to bundle the  
> SQLite library as it has always been done, and won't download  
> anything.  I will also not add the version.pm dependency and will  
> continue numbering releases where Matt left off, such as starting at  
> version 1.15 or jumping up a bit and starting at 1.20_01 which  
> should be harmless.
>
> In regards to which version to use, I will also leave that behaviour  
> as Matt had it; his version could either use the bundled version or  
> the system version, and I'll leave selecting which to the same  
> mechanism Matt had it, unless the users argue for a change.  I think  
> that means the bundled is the default.

Wow, I didn't know that you would be such a pushover. ;-) I don't use  
DBD::SQLite myself for any production purposes, and it has been a  
while since I've used it at all, so you should lean harder one people  
who really depend on it than on opinionated assholes like me.

> So then, what I'm planning to do is this then:
>
> 1.  Enter DBD::SQLite into public version control using Git, with  
> the initial version being the last one Matt published on CPAN, and  
> then I will merge in Audrey Tang's changes that were released as  
> DBD::SQLite::Amalgamation; essentially there is no change but that  
> several dozen SQLite library files are replaced with a single one.
>
> 2.  Then I'll update the library to the latest one on sqlite.org,  
> and then retest and deal with anything that breaks.
>
> 3.  Then I'll look at various open RT items and apply various  
> submitted bug fixes, again testing.  And I'll accept collaborative  
> fixes from other people such as those made against the version  
> control.
>
> 4.  Then I'll put an experimental-versioned release on CPAN.

Looks like you and the DBIx team hit this today. Congrats!

> In fact, despite the larger sized releases, this probably is  
> actually much less work for me when it comes down to it due to less  
> complexity.  I really will just make the minimal changes possible  
> from Matt's version, just to get it to run with the current SQLite  
> library, which will now be the single amalgamation file.  Also  
> mainly the driver would just be tested and asserted by me to work  
> with the version of SQLite bundled with it.

(Less work)++

> And if users replace the bundled amalgamation file with a different  
> amalgamation file, generally it'll act as if the replacement was the  
> original, so this isn't really a separate case.

Right, good call.

> Now I know you said prefer system, but to start I'll just leave it  
> the way Matt had it; mind you, if there is a general consensus to  
> change this default, I'll honor it.

That works.

> And my current plans are now back to what they were earlier this  
> year when I proposed co-maintaining the driver, a focus on  
> minimalism, before I became more ambitious in today's first proposal.

It pays to be less ambitious at first, methinks: Get things working  
and stable again, and go from there.

Best,

David